tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN April 2, 2014 6:00pm-9:01pm EDT
will usurp legislative power if we don't use it. and turns out that was an aim that was set out for progressives, socialists, x, as he called it, back in 1942. . control the bank aing, credit and security exchanges by the government. well, we know under the democrat control of the house and the senate and the white house, federal government took control of all student loans. what a great thing. thank god that my kids -- we were able to get student loans for them. before i had to go begging to a democratic administration. because it isn't difficult to figure out how easily corruptble it is when the government controls who gets to get a college loan and who doesn't.
so this was set out as what they were shooting for back in 1942. he says also, the underwriting of employment by the government , either through armaments or public works. the underwriting of social ecurity by the government, old-age pensions, mothers pensions, unemployment insurance and the like. well, we've seen that all come to pass since 1942. just as this progressive had hoped. the underwriting of food, housing, medical care by the government. the united states has -- is already experimenting with providing these essentials, other nations are far along the road. this progressive says he's also shooting for, quote, the use of deficit spending technique to finance these underwritings,
the annually balanced budget has lost its all-time sanctity. the control of foreign trade by the government. with increasing emphasis on bilateral agreements and batter aer deals -- barter deals. the control of natural resources. with increasing emphasis on self-sufficiency. we have seen the government with every passing month take more and more control of natural resources and since texas is doing so well, producing more oil, more natural gas than ever, basically the federal government is in effect declaring war on texas economically. they've siced the e.p.a. after texas. they want to do everything they can to destroy any private resource production.
it just sounds like somebody has had this book and that the ook "the road we are traveling" fits very nicely in the road the president's supporters say he has traveled or we have traveled. this goals -- progressive -- they call it x in the book but clearly it's the progressives. they want control of transportation, railway, highway, airway, waterway. well, that's progressed right nicely since 1942. they want control of all agriculture production. well, we've certainly seen that take effect as well. control of labor organizations, often to the point of prohibiting strikes. now that's something we haven't seen, but there really hasn't been a need because when the president, as this president did, issues an executive order that even the i.r.s. cannot
enact policies until they have a private meeting with the head of the labor union to work things out behind private doors and it can't be recorded and nobody can know what they discuss, there's really not much reason for strikes. when top labor union heads sit down with the president in a private meeting about health care before they come out with obamacare and nobody gets to know what was said and done, why do you need strikes? the heads of the labor unions are working hand in hand with the executive branch. in this book, the x, which clearly is progressivism, shoots for the enless -- enlistment of young men and women in youth corps, devoted to health, discipline, community service and ideologies consistent with those of the authorities. the c.c.c. camps have just
inaugurated military drill. well, it's also interesting that in obamacare, in my copy, 1,312, eginning of page it talked about -- ober or section 131, but it talked about the new president's officer and noncommissioned officer corps, created under a health care bill for international health emergency or national emergencies and they can be called up involuntarily. so it sounds like that fits right into what was sought as the road to travel. then here's another. heavy taxation with a special emphasis on the estates and incomes of the rich. well, we've certainly heard that inform you have -- enough. he goes on and says, not much, quote, taking over, unquote, of property or industries in the old socialistic sense. the formula appears to be
control without ownership. it is interesting to recall that the same formula is used by the management of great corporations in depriving stockholders of power. and, last, state controlled of communications and propaganda. we've certainly seen that take effect. since 1942. and we have people in the house and senate, my democrat -- some of my democratic friends, that want even more control through the f.c.c. and other government entities, to control people's thoughts and what they can put out on the air. let the government control all of that. it really is outrageous what is happening. in any event, it appears that the road we are traveling, written in 1942 by stewart chase, setting out what he called x, because socialism,
communism were not as popular, are the road that we have traveled and it's time to give people their power back. and with that i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from owa, mr. king, for 30 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate very much the honor and privilege to address you here on the floor of the united states house of representatives and to follow my good friend, the gentleman from texas, judge gohmert, in this presentation here tonight. i have been watching forward with increasing concern about some of the potential decisions that might be made here in this house of representatives and we've been through some long
immigration debates in this saga of what happens to the future and the destiny of the united states of america. and it is something that goes back i will say in the modern era, to sometime, january 5, 2004, when then president jorning bush gave his speech that -- george bush gave his speech that launched their effort to advance, i'll put this in quotes, comprehensive immigration reform, closed quote. mr. speaker, i had my discussion with the president's west wing at that time, meaning west wing of the white house, i advised them, i should say i advised him that what you've described here is amnesty and however you want to redefine it, however you want to try to call it comprehensive immigration reform, in the end, amnesty is amnesty, the american people won't know what amnesty is and they will reject amnesty because it's bad policy for our country. well, since that time, i'll say
that that's proven to be true. in each one of these national debates that we've had, in these waves of national debates that we have had. and that debate that took place in 2005 -- excuse me, 2004, into 2005, and beyond, when there were at times tens of thousands of people often coming in on buses wearing identical white t-shirts, pressing congress to suspend the resume of law and give them a special -- rule of law and give them a special path to citizenship. and through that this discussion has pivoted on what i called at the time the scarlet letter a called amnesty. and the definition of amnesty, it comes in different forms, lax law has one, there are a couple of other definitions for amnesty. but the practical definition that applies in this political arena that we are in, this cultural american arena that we are in, mr. speaker, is this. to grant amnesty is to pardon
immigration law breakers and reward them with the objective of their crime. now, the objective of their crime, and in most cases it is a crime, is not necessarily someone who is unlawful in the united states, aren't necessarily guilty of committing a crime, but it's true in most cases and in any case, we don't always know the objective of their crime. whether it is to come into the united states to get a job and seek a better life and take care of their family. if they cross the border illegally, that's a crime. if they come in legally and overstay their visa, then that's a violation of a civil misdemeanor. and yet if they go to work in this country, they have to fraudulently misrepresent themselves in order to legally work and then in that case, it's often document fraud and that is also a crime. and so the objective of their crime may have been a job, it may have been a home, it may have been what is planned to be
and often is a better life. and it might be someone coming in here with a different kind of intentions. and we know that come canning across our southern border, we have had i'll say scores of people at a minimum who are persons of interest from nations of interest. now, that's the verbiage that gets used in our security personnel. if they are from a nation of interest, that's a nation that has a -- is in the list, having been a nation that spawns terrorists. if they are a person of interest, they're a person from that nation that is a nation of interest that spawns terrorists. so you've got kind of a double marker here. somebody shows up coming across our southern border and they're from yemen, for example, they're going to be a person of interest from a nation of interest. which means we should pay more attention to that because there are risk -- they are a risk to the security of the united states because that's a place that terrorists come from in the records that we have and the data that we know, doesn't mean that everybody that might
come across our southern border from yemen is a terrorist. it means, though, just what the definition is. this happens on a regular basis. and when anyone is interdicted, apprehended coming across our border, who is a person of interest from a nation of interest, they're turned over as soon as possible to the f.b.i. that act immediately closes the case as far as public discussion is concerned because now it's classified. so if they are continually classifying their reports and any prosecutions in how we handle persons of interest from nations of interest, that means, mr. speaker, that we don't know how many people have been caught coming into the united states with ill will towards us or suspicion of ill will towards us. it's classified. what i know is, i know of seven cases where we have interdicted a person of interest from a nation of interest and the reason i know about them is because having spent time on
the border, been down there when a person of that definition is interdicted, and i gain knowledge of that circumstance, same business day, early enough in the day and close enough to the incident that they can tell me about it before that individual or individuals are handed over to the f.b.i., where the case becomes classified. this congress doesn't seem to be aware that this circumstance exists at all. and so the whistle through the grave yard and it may be a more appropriate explanation than i had actually thought when i started to say it, whistling through the graveyard here on what could be going on inside the united states when people come across the border who are from sources where we normally identify as sources for terrorism. that's one piece. another is 80% to 90% of the illegal drugs consumed in america come from or through mexico. it isn't all their fault. one is that some of those drugs
are produced and smuggled into mexico and then into the united states. another one is there's a huge demand in the united states for illegal drugs. the value of that marketplace in this country could well be $60 60 billion, that's billion with a b, and -- but even the drug enforcement agency doesn't know that number. and they aren't comfortable producing that number. that number thulely comes from a media -- actually comes from a media report. persons of interest from nations of interest, we have 80% to 90% of the illegal drugs coming from or through mexico, it is a threat to our country, a threat to our society. and on top of that, we have a border that remains pouress. we have an administration who has been announcing that he's been deporting record numbers of people. but when you look at the numbers you find out that he's double counting and he's changed the definition of removals. he's counting those who were turned back at the border, those who were caught crossing the border that do a voluntary
return to a void it going on their record so that -- to avoid it going on their record so that it would be subject to the three-year or 10-year bar, avoiding that. and double counting some of those that are turned back. so here are the real numbers. and it is this. the lead deportations actually took place in our modern era, under the -- not the george bush administration, mr. speaker, but they took place under the bill clinton administration in the year 2000 when there were some number above 1.8 million removals from the country and we have a president now, down around 450,000 removals from the country, a long, long ways from being what they sometimes accept the definition of as the deporter in chief. no president has taken the position that this president that he picks and chooses the laws he wants to enforce and ignores the rest.
no president has gone out there and violated the limitations in article 2 of the constitution. just within immigration itself, when the morton memos came out and that's the memos that created the executive amnesty that was produced and signed by janet napolitano napolitano, came before the judiciary committee and alleged that they prosecutorial discretion and don't have the best resources but enforce with the best resources that they have, and stated it is on an individual basis only. she repeated it in her testimony under oath before the judiciary committee and i had in front of me at the time the document that describes this and in a page and about a third and single-spaced
used the term on an individual basis only, by my count, seven times. why would this administration remind members of congress, especially members of the judiciary committee that they re executing prrl -- prosecutorial discretion by waiving the law under this definition of on an individual basis only. we know they didn't deal with them when you read that report. you come to this conclusion. that homeland security under the morton memos of i.c.e., created four different classes of people, and they are broadly exempted by the law of the definitions of the classes of people in the very memo that says seven times on an individual basis only, on an individual basis only. this was what i thought a lame
effort to cloak themselves in prosecutorial discretion when there is no such thing. i want to emphasize, there is no such thing as prosecutorial discretion outside of an individual basis only. it can only be applied on an individual basis and cannot be applied to groups or classes of people. everyone who is paying attention to the structure of law, knows that the law describes classes of people and the discretion has to be justifyable. this administration didn't adhere to that and they know it. they strategized around it so they could grant what is the equivalent of amnesty to hundreds of thousands of people. senator sessions released a report a week ago and i thank him and his staff for the work they have done to dig the details out of this network of
regulations and rules and executive edicts to come down to this point, the application of the law is almost completely, almost completely exempts the law which requires those encountered by immigration officials who are unjufflely present in the united states to be placed into removal proceedings. it is clear that the morton memo direct i.c.e. to violate the very law that they have taken an oath to uphold. and that requirement that they replace into removal proceedings , the president has ordered that they do not do so which violates their oath to the constitution, their fidelity to the law and rule of law and usurps the directive from congress which sets it up here in the united states of america.
this is an appalling assault on our constitution on the rule of law and the separation of powers and the administration knows it. and i'm not drawing this as an assumption, mr. speaker, but drawing this as a misunderstanding. the president has told us that he taught constitutional law as a professor at the university of chick school of law for 10 years. 10 years of teaching the constitution means you can't avoid means you can't avoid addressing the separation of powers that are distinct between articles 1, 2 and 3 of our constitution. and if we wondered if somehow the president could vice president taught the constitutional law and not run across the separations or the authority to congress, all legislative powers shall be vested in the body of the united states congress, the legislative body in article 1. all powers, legislative powers.
the president taught that. you can't take constitutional law and avoid it. he didn't avoid it. he was teaching it as recently as march 28, 2011, when he was speaking to a high school class in a high school here in washington, d.c., when he said to them, you want me to enact the dream act by executive order, but i'm here to tell you that you have studied this and you know that the legislative -- that congress doesn't allow that. i don't have the authority to implement the dream act by executive order because -- he said it this way, congress writes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the law and my job to enforce them. it's a clear understanding of the three branches of government embodieded in articles 1, 2 and
3. he not only taught this and gave a speech on it to a high school class and said i cannot implement this by executive order or fiat, it is exclusively reserved for congress. some months later, apparently the idea was stuck in the head of the president of the united states and by executive fiat he did what he said he didn't have the authority to do. we could go on through obamacare, 38 or 39 more different changes that have been played to obamacare. i don't assert that they are all unconstitutional moves by the president, but some of them are unconstitutional that it cannot be argued with a straight face if you know anything. the clearest and starkest was, the directive in obamacare that the employer mandate be implemented in each -- shall be implemented in each month after
december of 2013. that's real clear that the president has announced months ago, we are going to delay the employer mandate for another year and add another year. it's as if the president, took his pen, went to page whatever it is in the 2,700 pages of obamacare and went in there, be a red pen, draw a line through that number that said 2013 and each month after december of 2013, draw a line through that and right above it, each month after december, changed the number from 2013 to 2014. the president does not have the authority to do that. if he does, then the work of this congress is meaningless. and it would never have relation to anything except we would be a debate body here. and so we could be in the business of deciding whether we side for or against the
president without any power whatsoever, if the president continues to exert this authority, it's unconstitutional and a violation of his constitutional authorities and separation of power and there are multiple lawsuits that are working their way through the courts and i think the administration has done a calculation of, they aren't going to catch up with us before the president's term is over and goes off into his perpetual golfing land that he might. this sets the destiny for america. it's not like obamacare, which is the largest social movement in my adult lifetime, social-engineering piece of legislation, takeover of a huge percentage of our economy, many say 17% of our economy. it is a directive that orders american citizens for the first time to buy a product that's
produced and specified by the federal government or be fined and punished by the internal revenue service. that's where we are with obamacare. that's what it does to this liberty and you will be a subject of the state and buy a product that is approved by the federal government and if you fail to do what we have ordered you to do, then we are going to fine you and punish you and use the internal revenue service to gun you down for that money. that is appalling. we should think of that in the context that if the president -- first of all, if the federal government can order you to buy an insurance policy, they can order you to buy an automobile or a washing machine and go to the grocery store and buy broccoli. they could forbid you from buying butter or whatever the
first lady might think is not a healthy diet. they are dictating calorie limitations to our kids in school. this country has not become so much the land of the free but become a land where they seek to micro manage every aspect of our lives. it has started and going down that way. if, if the white house can configure a bill and pass it through this congress by hook, crook and legislative shen nan began and making the deal to get the votes, promise a member of congress, let's say a member of congress from michigan that never fear if there is language that doesn't become part of the law, the president will amend obamacare and he'll amend it after he signs the bill -- if the agreement that they make here doesn't follow through in the final piece of legislation that comes from the senate. can you imagine, mr. speaker,
the very idea that the president would amend any bill. he has no authority to amend any legislation whatsoever. he has no authority to amend existing u.s. code of any kind whatsoever. he can't influence the executive branch to pass a rule to publish that rule and take it out for comments and through the authority granted to the executive branch through the administrative procedures act, they can have the force and effect of law, but they can't change law, they can't amend law and cannot write a rule that changes the directive language that's part of the law. the law is the law. the constitution is the foundation for this republicic and the laws that are -- republic and the laws that are passed by it are supreme and not the president. we have this usurpation by the
president and piece of obamacare that is taking of american liberty and president changes it at will and not an ability in this congress to put the brakes on that and maybe, just maybe the american people will go to the polls and bring it around the other way. in 2016, that president that president must run in adhering and reverting our country back to this constitution. but this country, the bedrock underneath our constitution are free and fair elections, confidence that they are free, fair and legitimate. the foundation is the constitution. the declaration is the promise. the constitution is a fulfillment and we are in in the most blessed country of the world and we are watching it being taken apart piece by piece. obamacare changed 30 some times.
immigration changed five or six times and a president who threatens to go out and do it again, one who success pnded well fair to work and tightened up when he couldn't tighten it up. and nol child left behind suspended by the application of waivers because he didn't agree with the policy and thought he had a better policy and didn't want to come to congress. this president doesn't negotiate with this congress. he doesn't work in a cooperative fashion. he imposes the whim of the white house on the american people. this congress went through a government shutdown to assert its will and came into second place on that because not enough members of this congress had the will, but we watched the constitution be eroded because of that lack of will. and now, mr. speaker, what i see coming is an effort to grant more amnesty through the
legislative process instead of through the executive fiat or executive overreach process. and the president threatens to use his pen more to grant more amnesty if we don't pass it here in the house. and we have misguided people on my side of the aisle that ought to be better thirst than they are. i understand why democrats are for amnesty because they get the big political benefit. discouraged me for years of bringing up this topic that the democrats have long known that a significant majority, two to one, three to one and five to one and statistics eight to one, newly-arrived immigrants are going to vote in those statistics at least two to one for democrats. they will asimulate into the politics where they arrive.
they will associate with our neighbors, friends and family. when they go to political events, if they go, they will go with them and encourage by them and when they go to the polls, will take their first advice. in my neighborhood, we have fourth generation f.d.r. democrats that by hertteage, by philosophy are republicans but don't change their voting stripes. if someone thinks i'm wrong, go to boston and find me an irish republican catholic, but the hert acknowledge of inheriting the locale is a big part of this. that's what drives democrats. it's not about truth, justice and the american way or fairness, it's about political power and about democrats seeking to expand the dependency class in america because that expands their political class and their political leverage at
the expense of the constitution, the rule of law, safety in the streets of america and at the expense of the destiny of our country. . we need to look ahead, mr. speaker. we need to see that if we make an immigration decision in this congress, we are going to live with that decision and our children and our grandchildren, every succeeding generation lives with the decisions that we make here on immigration. it is different than obamacare. obamacare is bad. it's a horrible usurpation of god-given american liberty. it can be repealed. it can even be, if components, diminished in its negative effects by some tweaks that we could do. i have some on the books that i'll be advancing here in the upcoming weeks. but we could repeal obamacare, we could undo it, we could recover, we could even somehow struggle through massive amendment of it and come out with a product that the american people could live with and still have a measure of
freedom. but if we get the immigration question wrong, there's no going back to repeal, there's no going back to change, there's no going back to undo what would be done by the colossal mistake of amnesty. and whatever you think about demographics, whatever you think about political power, whatever you think about economics, there is an essential pillar of american exceptionalism that we can't do without and still be a great country. it's called the rule of law. the law has to treat everyone equally. justice must be blind. lady justice stands there with the scales in her hands , anced and most of the time because justice needs to be blind. if we lose the rule of law, we will never be able to restore it again. if we sacrifice the rule of law
to the misguided idea that somehow our sympathy for people that want a better life, and by the way there are some six billion of them on the plan theat want a better life, if -- planet that want a better life, if our idea, if our sympathy of people who want a better life is more important than our fidelity to the rule of law, then we've sacrificed the core of the greatness of america because our hearts overruled our heads. i'm not surprised when democrats do that. that's what they're in business to do. s have their hearts overrule their heads. but we can't let that happen on this side of the aisle, mr. speaker. not even, not even for someone who came into the united states illegally, misrepresented themselves to get into the united states military, put on a uniform, took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states and maybe, just maybe risked their life in the performance of that duty. they've already violated our laws, they've already misrepresented themselves, they've already defrauded the department of defense. any bill that might be attached to a national defense
authorization act or come to this floor in any form, to reward someone who has defrauded the department of united states, whether or not they've taken an oath to uphold the constitution, it is a false oath because they've given their false word. any bill like that needs to be met with the full rejection of the full vigor of the rule of law here in the -- on the floor of the united states congress. that includes those things that coming out now in the press today. we don't need to have an intense fight over immigration. we have an election coming up in november. if those of us who have taken an oath to uphold the constitution and have defended it, generally from this side of the aisle and not exclusively, mr. speaker, we have an obligation to defend that rule of law, preserve the sovereignty of america, refuse to reward law breakers. if we reward law breakers, we get more law breakers. we need fewer law breakers, not more. i will defend my oath to this
constitution and the rule of law and i will encourage and challenge all of my colleagues to do the same. i thank you, mr. speaker, for your attention and i yield back he balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion to adjourn? mr. king: mr. speaker, i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow
party, but to the people. no matter the margin, no matter the majority. all across the world, from bosnia to chechnya, to south africa, people lay down their lives for the kind of voice we take for granted. too often the transfer of power is an act of pain and carnage, not one as we see today of peace and decency. but here in the house of representatives, for 219 years, longer than any democracy in the world, we heed the people's voice with peace and civility and respect. with faith and with friendship , you deepest respect
are now my speaker and let the great debate begin. i now have the high honor and distinct privilege to present to the house of representatives our new speaker, the gentleman from georgia, newt gingrich. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> find more highlights from 35 years of house floor coverage on our facebook page. c-span, created by america's cable companies, 35 years ago, and brought to you today as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this year's student cam video competition. student cam is c-span's annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. students were asked to create their documentary answering the question, what's the most important issue the u.s.
congress should consider in 2014? one of our second prize winners are seniors at thomas jefferson high school in alexandria, virginia. and mule, clara pitts amilia griese would like congress to look at the budget control act of 2011. >> article one, section eight of the constitution, says that congress shall have the power to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain the navy, and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. a constitutional studies fellow at the libertarian kato institute explains. >> the government instituted at the very beginning from first principles to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. it's a political theory 101. congress has a pretty wide berth to spend money on defense. on the army, on nate i have, and as has developed the air force. >> it is the responsibility of leaders in the department deaf
fence like the chief of naval research to report to the secretary of defense what they need in the budget to be successful. >> each year we'll put in kind of a -- i call it a wish list. it's our budget. we really want to work on these things, these science and technology and research projects and then it will go through our navy and marine corps leadership and then we'll submit it -- that gets submitted, then pushed on to the secretary of defense. once the secretary of defense has that, he looks at the army's wish list, the navy marine corps' wish list, the air force's wish list, and a few other entities' wish lists. they do it and try to balance things out and then they go and send it up the hill to the president and the president says, like it, i don't like it or fix it a little bit and after that's been indeed proved, then they will submit it to congress. and then congress takes that year, after it's submitted, they're now looking at it,
reviewing it, if they have any questions they'll ask us questions. eventualy the congress will be satisfied, if they've done, that and then they'll sign a ill. >> we asked a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies at the cato institute to explain how the budget control act works. >> the law says thou shall not spend more than this amount for defense. and if you do, we will sequester, we will go across the board to every program equally and get you back to the cap level. so there's no way without changing the law that puts this, that you can spend more than that amount. you can pass an appropriation bill that spends more but then we're just going to sequester you back so you're right where you would have been even if you didn't have sequestration. >> if left in place, the sequestration cuts to the department of defense will have a dramatic and possibly irreversible effect on the military's ability to provide for national defense.
>> in many cases when a sequestration comes in or a continuing resolution, it not only dramatically slows down the research, but it also in men cases may -- you may lose people. i mean brilliant people. people you don't get back again. they have to go away. and you may never get them back into your laboratories or into your warfare centers. >> i'm just saying we're going to take 1% off the top or 5% off the top, uniformy across everything, is very -- have a -- is a very blunt instrument and is not as good policy as having a more surgical type of cut. >> it's like a cookie cutter approach. ok, this is how we're going to do it. well, when it gets to our districts, which is financed through we said both u.s. government dollars but then also foreign military money, the cookie cutter approach really didn't apply to us. or really doesn't work well for
us. we can't put out some directive for guidance because each employee is affected differently by the directives that we receive from our hire headquarters -- higher headquarters. so we invest a lot of man hours, a lot of human capital that we would normally use doing our routine day-to-day jobs. >> i think the sequestration is the worst way of handling the budget other than not paying at all. >> the department of defense understands that due to the nation's current economic state, reductions in spending must be made. simply asking congress to pass a budget that makes these cuts strategically. >> too many appear to believe that we can maintain a solid defense that is driven by budget choices, not strategic ones. defense has contributed more than half of the deficit reduction measures taken to date.
some in government who want to use the military to pay for the rest. to protect the sacred cow that is entitlement spending. consider that word. entitlements. entitlements imply you're entitled to a certain benefit. and i can't think of anyone who has earned that right ahead of our troops. by volunteering to put their lives on the line for this country, they are entitled to the best training, equipment and leadership our nation can provide. >> the president's f.y. 2014 budget sustains our military strength in an environment of constrained resources. giving d.o.d. the time and flexibility to make the necessary reductions and adjustments over a 10-year period. hard choices, mr. chairman, will have to be made over these next few years. >> we're making up choices between the military services. so now we're finally starting to say, maybe the world being what it is right now and our missions being what they are
and our tolerance for warfare being low, we can cut the army a little more. some of those choices have been deferred and it's good to make them eventually. >> we are now in a different fiscal environment. new realities are forcing us to more fully confront these tough and painful choices. and to make the reforms necessary to put this department on a path to sustain our military strength for the 21st century and meet these new and complicated threat, we will have to do things differently. this will require the continued partnership of congress. >> congress has taken steps in the right direction with recent budget agreements. however, there is still work to be done in 2014 and beyond in order to assure that deficit reduction plans are implemented strategically. >> to watch all of the winning videos and to learn more about competition, go to
c-span.org and click on studentcam. and tell us what you think about the issues these students want congress to consider. post your comment on student cam's facebook page or tweet us using #studentcam. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> over to the house budget committee which has been meeting since this morning, meeting up -- marking up the g.o.p.'s committee budget. it cuts $5.1 trillion over the next decade, with more than $2 drl coming from repealing the -- $2 trillion coming from repealing the the -- the health care law. nondefense, nonmandatory spending would be cut by almost $800 billion. chairman ryan says the plan balances the federal budget over 10 years. ive coverage here on c-span. >> but the overall results are mixed. this maze of programs and lack of sustained results are a disservice to vulnerable children. and it's irresponsible to add
in another layer of spending before we figure out how to fix the ones that we have. i'd also like to take a quick minute to talk a little bit about the way this program is paid for. because in a typical sort of washington way, we throw out a positive idea and then we offer up that we'll just tax a few villains and somehow it will all be paid for. the reality is that most of those so-called villains create a lot of jobs. one of the folks that are talked about being taxed in this amendment is america's oil and natural gas industry. supports 9.2 million jobs and 7.7% of the country's gross domestic product. it also helps ensure the nation's energy security and unfairly targeting oil and gas companies could cost u.s. jobs and compromise the country's energy security. the kinds of tax increases suggested in this bill, it's
been estimated by a study from wood-mckenzie, that it would cost as many as 165,000 jobs over the next six years. you can't raise taxes without consequences. early childhood education is a worthy effort but we can't spend $75 billion more by taxing at this time. i would like to yield to my friend and colleague from indiana, mr. rokita, for further comments. >> i thank the gentleman. and thank the gentleman for his amendment. and to mr. pocan's point, we had an excellent subcommittee hearing a few weeks ago over in education and work force for these programs, they were discussed and outcomes were analyzed and commented on and
it was pretty good. the problem that i think occurs with this -- that i know occurs with this amendment and really it's been a theme throughout the day and evening is that for every priority these amendments make, including this one, the answer is always the same. take from others. and i think it would have been a much more genuine effort against -- effort, again, speak as a chairman, if we truly prioritized what we were doing here. if the priority of the amendments was further funding in early childhood education programs, what isn't the priority anymore? what so much isn't the priority anymore? what is just a little bit less of a priority that we could agree, as republicans and democrats, and members of congress, to take from and put into this new priority?
i would like the chair to, without objection, admit into the record the testimony before the committee on education and work force, from february 5, 2014, testimony from the government accounting office. >> without objection. >> talking about federal fund support with multiple programs with similar goals, that talks about the due policity in a lot of the head start programs. for example, if this was the priority in the amendment, to fund these programs better, perhaps we could have gotten a lot of that funding by eliminating the duplication in the program that we know exists. and from a nonpartisan source. a decent report. i commend it to your reading. i'd also like, if there's no objection, to admit into the record the head start research final report from the office of planning, research and
evaluation of the administration for children. >> without objection. >> this report, the key finding says, looking across, and i quote, looking across the full study period from the beginning of head start through third grade, the evidence is clear that access to head start improved children's preschool outcomes across developmental domains. it backs up what we've been talking about here tonight. but continuing to quote, but had few impacts on children in kindergarten through third grade. according to a little bit further down, in the introduction under key findings, in contrast, there was little evidence of systemic differences in children's elementary school experiences through third grade between children provided access to head start and their counterparts in the control group. so, again, i think if this amendment was serious, if the effort was genuine, we wouldn't
simply throw other people's money at it. we have some good reports here that talk about due policity in the programs and some questionable results, but if we really wanted to make in the priority, let's discuss what's less of a priority. and with that i yield back to the gentleman from indiana and thank him for his time. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments. i would just add, again, for the last amendment we discussed, i have a nephew who is autistic. i would love to see further spending on research in a world where we could find that spending without raising taxes. i think early childhood programs are worthy as well. but part of our problem as a nation is because we haven't been willing to make the kinds of choices it takes to be able to have those investments. in a struggling economy, raising taxes, it's not the right way to pay for the amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote no.
thank you. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. slayeder is recognized for within minute to close. >> i appreciate that -- for one minute to close. >> i appreciate that, mr. chairman. i appreciate the fact that my colleagues are verifying my argument. that indeed head start works. works real well. after head start goes away, there's a problem with the rest of our education system. so the gains don't keep going. that's a fair comment. but you just clearly stated head start works. and it's been shown again and again. we're not talking about raising taxes here, folks. we're talking about taking tax loopholes, waste, fraud and abuse that my colleagues across the purport to not like, and in deference of bipartisan spirit here, because i'm feeling the love, i'm not going to give up all that oil and gas and all the corporate jets. we're just going to go to the republican proposal. chairman camp came out with a very nice, excellent proposal, his committee spent four years trying to figure out what sort of waste, fraud and abuse is going on in our tax system, defrauding the taxpayers. duplicate programs, let's use chairman camp's proposal to
fund the early childhood investment. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. schrader. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> recorded vote. >> a recorded vote is requested. the clerk will call the roll. >> dr. price. dr. price, no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no. mr. campbell. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert. mr. cole. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. r. lankford. mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. ribble. mr. ribble, no. mr. flores. mr. flores, no. mr. rokita. mr. rokita, no. mr. woodall.
mr. woodall, no. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no. mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee, no. mr. riggle. mr. riggle, no. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. ms. walorski, no. mr. messer. mr. messer, no. mr. royce. mr. royce, no. mr. williams. mr. williams, no. mr. duffy. mr. duffy, no. mr. calvert. mr. calvert, no. mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. lankford. mr. lankford, no. mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmuth. mr. yarmuth, aye. mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ryan. mr. ryan. mr. ryan, aye.
ms. moore. ms. castor. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan, aye. mrs. lujan grich am. aye. mr. huffman. mr. cardenas. mr. cardenas, aye. mr. blumenauer. mr. schrader. mr. schrader, aye. mr. doggett. mr. doggett, aye. mr. kildee. mr. kildee, aye. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. >> any other member wish to change their vote or to vote? that was mr. huffman recorded. >> mr. huffman. mr. huffman, aye.
>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, on that vote the ayes are 13, the noes are 22. >> the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. i believe mr. doggett, do you have an amendment? >> i do. i have an amendment at the desk. >> there's an amendment at the desk. the clerk will designate the amendment and the staff will distribute the amendment. >> an amendment offered by mr. doggett relating to corporate compensation. >> the gentleman is recognized for eight minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, last january the -- with considerable can fanfare republicans announced that h.r. 1, the very first resolution in this house, would be dedicated to tax reform. and that we would get comprehensive tax reform for a fairer and more simplified tax system. when i checked each month last
year, that h.r. 1 remained reserved for the speaker. and the same is true today. that is not the result of any democratic action, but apparently indecision on the part of republicans as to what that tax reform might look like . earlier in this year, the chairman of the ways and means proposal did offer a that i have some concerns about, but there are some aspects of it. it at least was a serious attempt to deal with the tax issues. and we had a working group meeting about it again this morning. but still there is no tax reform proposal that has been filed. the budget resolution before us appears to be -- have only passing reference to that effort in the ways and means committee. clearly the budget resolution cannot address all of these
issues, though i think as the ways and means committee can has had this proposal -- committee has had this proposal, that those multinationals that have been spending more on their lobbyists and lobbying congress than they do in paying taxes in some given years have made a wise investment, because they've been able to protect all of their loopholes and dvantages and exceptions. i don't propose to deal with all aspects of that but to pick one particular issue thing the public needs to know more about. i believe that our democratic budget proposal seeks to deal with the general issues and to provide a more balanced approach that recognizes we cannot meet the nation's infrastructure needs, our basic research needs, our work forest development needs, without some revenues to go along with the spending cuts. but i don't propose to use the
savings that would be obtained through these additional revenues in this amendment on anything but reducing the deficit, since that seems to be a major concern of our republican colleagues. the proposal that i have before the committee would increase revenues for deficit reduction by about $50 billion over the decade. r current tax law has an incentive for major corporations to pay their executives more and pay less in taxes. most americans would be surprised to know that multimillion dollar executive bonuses are currently tax writeoffs. those congress tried to tackle this problem 20 years ago in 1993, actually limiting the deductibility of certain executive pay to $1 million, it had an exception and of course the exception has swallowed the rule. i heard a colleague from indiana
earlier express the view that more pell grants are leading to inflated college professor salaries. well i'm concerned about something a little bigger than the size of community college professor's salary. if off situation, as existed at j.p. morgan chase, where the c.e.o. was paid $20 million in a year that the bank paid billions in penalties for wrongdoing, i don't think that the american taxpayer ought to be subsidizing that. i think j.p. mar began chase can pay its executives as much as it wants to pay but there should be that t, similar to that the congress tried to put in effect in 1993 on how much of that executive compensation is deductible. and the amount -- the amounts involved are really enormous. apparently some executives can't get by on less than tens of millions of $s a year in
compensation. the economic policy institute estimate this is a between 2007 and 2010, more than $120 billion in executive compensation was deductible from corporate earnings and more than half fell within this exception. so i believe, let corporations provide as much compensation as they want for their directors, for their officers, for their employees but let the taxpayer not subsidize that through providing a writeoff for those very large amounts and let's use the $50 billion that would be obtained in additional revenue to pay down our debt and with that, i would yield a couple of minutes to our colleague from wisconsin, mr. poe can. -- mr. pocan. >> thank you, mr. doggett for introducing this. i think this is one of those
things, we're not limiting how much anyone can pay anyone. but we are saying every firefighter, teacher, and nurse shouldn't be subsidizing the excessive pay a company pays out to avoid paying taxes. in 1988, the average c.e.o. made 40 times their worker. right now the ratio is up to 354 times. in germany and japan and other countries that have had successes -- successes in the past, they've been closer to that 25-1 or 30-1 range. to say you're going to allow them to have that as an exemption when we could reduce the deficit by $50 billion, that's a strong amendment. as a small business owner, we don't have the same ways to deduct. we've got some limitations on what we can do. certainly this is one that only benefits a very, very small amount of people and we all wind up subsidizing that. if we really want to address deficit reduction, we can go after something that in many ways is done as a tax dom, in
many ways done in way this is a aren't -- as a tax dodge, in many ways dobe in a way that isn't helpful to the company. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments and yield back. >> the gentleman from georgia, mr. woodall is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you, i appreciate the opportunity to speak on an amendment by one of our new members here today. i welcome the cooperation on deficit reduction, i think it's something that's a shared goal and we ought to be able to find common ground on and i welcome the quopping on fundamental tax reform because that's something that morely this chairman, dave camp out of michigan, has put an incredible amount of time into that we have not seen come to fruition. i hope that it will. i'll be a sponsor of the most widely co-sponsored fundamental tax reform bill in this congress, the fair tax. which goes directly to the issue of how are we going to bay pais
down these deficits and the answer is economic growth. i believe as strongly as i'm sure the gentleman from texas does that tax loopholes need to go away. i believe that we ought to give tax expenditures the same kind of scrutiny we give discretionary spending expenditures. but to call the deduction of your employees' salaries a loophole in the tax code is to turn the entire tax code on its head. now fair enough, if what you want to say is, i want to go after the wealthy. that's a fair case to make, folks have been making it for a long time, folks have been successful at making that case as you look at the distribution of taxes in this country. but in this case, the amendment does not go after the wealthy. it goes after the corporation. the men and women that you have identified that you believe are making obscene amounts of money, they pay not one penny more
under this amendment. who pays is the grandmother and grandfather whose pension fund owns stock in those corporations. this isn't an amendment that geefs high net worth individuals. this is an amendment that goes after those corporations that make up the backbone of every teach ear -- teacher's pension program, every union pension program, every portfolio across this country that depends on these american manufacturing jobs are made up of these businesses. i want to go one step further. there are a lot of bad actors we need to go after. goodness knows we shine the spoolt on a lot of -- the spotlight on a lot of them. but in the case of corporations, big corporation, we have a lot of them headquartered in atlanta. their board of directors has a fidure -- fiduciary responsibility to those grandmothers and grandfathers i
talked about. when we talk about, are these folks worth that amount of money? i don't know. i've never sat on one of those boards but i know it's actionable if those board of directors breach that. so for this amendment to second-guess the board of directors that has a legal obligation to protect these grandmothers and grandfathers, this fixed income stream that so many folks fend on, gives me great pausism understand if my colleagues want to go after high net worth individuals, want to raise taxes on those they can -- they believe can afford it most but america already has the highest corporate income tax rate in the world. we already punish our corporations more than anybody else does on the planet as we sit here today and i am not convinced, for those of us, again, who share a common goal of a growing economy, and a rowing jobs market, that raising that tax burden yet again is going to achieve any of the goal this is a we all share,
well intended, but i think misguided in this way. i'd like to yield to my friend from wisconsin, mr. ribble. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i've got several concerns and roblems with it. one is in an era where we have historically low interest rate, seniors that are heavily invested with their retirement plans, as mr. woodall so eloquently explained, their pension plans, they're the ones who get punished in this. in an effort to get at the rich, we get at some of the poor. they can't just put their money in a c.d. and earn 75 basis points. they've got to invest the money someplace, in those very corporations we're targeting here. we already have the highest corporate tax rates in the world at 39.1%. now what we're proposing is double taxing that dollar. let's take corporation x who paying an -- pays an executive
$2 million. right now, that executive is going to get taxed at the maximum 39% rate plus pay their state tax rate on it, up to, depending on what state you're from, could be as much as 50% of your total income there. and then on top of it, the corporation is now going to pay the tax on that same million dollars again. so it's this constant money knee grab under the guise of deficit reduction. it's not the type of thing that i believe suits the american dream. when i stop and think about the young college kids that many of my friends across the aisle talked about today, the need for them to get a college education, to pursue success in this world, well, they're in an economic machine where they can actually achieve that. and a million dollars a year is an achieveable goal for many of these young men and women. we have a tendency, i think, sometimes to squelch the
american dream and punish it as if it were something bad that being successful in life is something we shouldn't strive for, we ought to treat it like it's a sin tax. being successful is like smoking greats or -- cigarettes or drinking alcohol or taking drugs. i don't get this mentality. we ought to encourage young people to be successful and then duplicate that effort again and again and depen and reinvest that money back in the economy and create even more successful people and then you can attack, at least one time, at -- you tax at least one time, 40%, plus whatever the state is charging. that's a pretty good bit that means one of these business folks or one of these successful folks who have gone after the american dream they get up on january 1 and every single day they go to work, all through january, all through february, all through march, all through april. all through may. and every single penny that they earn for those five months they
send in to the federal treasury. every single penny. ky not think of a worse incentive to get up in the morning and go to work knowing that every penny i earn today will go to uncle sam. that's an exciting incentive. and we do this for five months. if you have a state tax you do it for six months for some people. so -- and then we say, it's all under the guise of fairness. that's not really fair. i would encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment and with that, i yield my time back to mr. woodall. >> i thank my friend from wisconsin. i pledge to work with my friend from texas on deficit reduction. i pledge to work with my friend from texas on fundamental tax reform. i pledge to work with my friend from texas on getting after some of these unintended consequences of the tax code, some of these tax loopholes but i think my friend from wisconsin is right, those corporate actors can only do three things with their
profits. they can either send them home with their employees in increased salary, send them home with consumers in lower prices or send them home with shareholders in terms of increased pension paymentsism support my consumers, i support my employee, i support my retirees. i have to urge the rejection of this amendment. i yield back. >> mr. doggett is recognized for one minute to close. >> i appreciate the offer of cooperation and the kind comments about the commirm of the ways and means committee, mr. camp and i think the gentleman will want to pass along his constant money nee grab comments to mr. camp because his proposal includes the same language i have for the top three executives. i simply expanded to cover other executives at these corporations. we would know if that is your proposal and not just mr. camp's if h.r. 1 had been filed. it is not democrats that are keeping you from filing tax reform legislation. i'm heartened to hear the enthusiastic concern about the tax code that is being expressed here today.
but it's not being expressed by offer anything bill for vote in committee or on the floor of the house and there's no one stopping you. you're in total control of what's on the agenda of the committee and the house and if you believe in fundamental tax reform, why don't you put it out there for us to take a vote and we can offer amendments to deal with issues just like the one i'm raising tonight. what a strange circumstance that the same grup of people that want to voucherize medicare, want to eliminate long-term care coverage for seniors -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. by not taxes.m by >> those in favor of the amendment say aye. those opposed, no. >> i request a recorded vote. >> a recorded vote. mr. price. no. mr. campbell. mr. campbell no. mr. calvert. mr. mr. cole.
mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. lankford. mr. lankford, no. mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. ribble. mr. ribble, no. mr. flores. mr. flores, no. mr. okey -- mr. rokita. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mrs. blackburn. mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee no. mr. rigell. mr. rigell, no. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. mrs. walorski. mrs. walorski, no. many mr. -- mr. messer. mr. messer, no. mr. wright. mr. wright, no. mr. williams. mr. williams, no. mr. duffy. mr. duffy, no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no.
mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no. mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmuth. mr. yarmuth, aye. r. pascrell. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ryan. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore. ms. castor -- ms. kaptur. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries, aye. mr. pocan. r. pocan, aye. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. huffman. mr. huffman, aye. mr. cardenas.
r. blumenauer. mr. schrader. mr. schrader, aye. mr. doggett. mr. doggett, aye. mr. kildee. mr. kildee, aye. mr. rokita. mr. rokita, no. mr. calvert. mr. calvert, no. mr. chairman. r. chairman, no. >> does anybody else wish to change their vote or change their vote? hearing none, the clerk will report. >> the ayes have 12, the noes are 22. >> the amendment is not agreed to. i believe this is the last tier a amendment, mr. kildee is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm sure -- >> you have to call it out. you have an amendment at the desk, call it out. >> i do have an amendment at the
desk. >> the clerk will dez ig nate the amendment. >> i'm the new kid. >> an amendment offered by mr. kildee, relating to taxes on individuals earning more than $1 million annually. >> now the gentleman is recognized for eight minutes. >> thank you. we've heard a number of references to my michigan colleague, mr. camp, and his recent efforts to start a conversation on comprehensive tax reform. i think we can all agree on one thing he, did a decent job of starting the conversation. it is interesting, though, to me, and i don't know if my experience is a singular experience, but the amount of blowback that i have heard from many of those who have been calling for comprehensive tax reform when they begin to see the details of what it actually means. because it's one thing to be for it, and to use a talking point, you know, the favorite one of course is broaden the base,
lower the rates. it's interesting to hear the talking points but when you actually have to look at it on paper and it has been to a great extent those at the upper end, corporations and wealthy individuals, that i've heard from that look at what this comprehensive tax reform might do to them. they've got them netted out but there's great concern because i think what we see now and what my amendment attempts to address is that while we may have a tax code if we look at it in its simplest form this is a looks like a graduated system that provides for tax fairness, meaning the better off you are, the more you contribute to the civil society that we're all funding, that we're all supporting, it's important to sustaining our communities and our economy, that you contribute more. but that's not exactly been the case. this amendment attempts to to deal with that. this amendment would reduce the tax breaks for those individuals
with incomes greater than $1 million. so mr. woodall's point, and i understand your disagreement with my colleague, mr. doggett's amendment, but the point you did make is that it wasn't the individual this is a would have to step up, i disagree with that. but in this case it is specifically the individuals that this amendment would speak to. it is interesting, in fact, i think we all recall the comments that warren buffett made not too many years back, famously observing that he pays a lower overall federal tax rate than his secretary because of his ability to use tax breaks that are not available to most americans, particularly those with significantly lower income. so while we have a system that on paper in some ways looked at in its simplest form provides for increased contributions as one is more capable of providing those, the fact of the matter stherk tax code that has been developed over the years in this
country is one that provides disproportionate benefits and breaks to those at the highest levels and ends up undermining not only our ability to generate necessary revenue in a manner that's fair, but undermines public confidence that we have a tax system that is fair. so this amendment is actually very simple. it would simply say that over the next 10 year, we would generate $125 billion by limiting, reducing, those tax benefits that apply to individuals making over that threshold of $1 million. now here's the thing. i took note of some of the comments on the other side. i won't say, and i don't believe the people who do well are villains. they're not villains, they're people who have worked hard and have done well and have
succeeded and they ought to be congratulated for that. uh but neither are people who are struggling every single day to try to put food on the table to be villainized because they're in a position where they have no place to go except to the common government we all fund to get them from their last job to the next job. so let's just agree that we're not going to villainize those who do well and we're not going to villainize those who some would say are resting on the safety net because they don't have the motivation for work. let's just stipulate we're not going to go either place. but let's agree to this. i think this is an amendment that might make sense because in some cases we've heard from folks on the other side that dealing with the new revenues hat a policy such as the one i propose might derive, might not warrant tradeoffs to fund other program this is a many of us on this side are trying to make
sure are supported. but can we at least agree that if we're willing to execute this policy that we would dedicate 100% of the revenue that it would generate to deficit reduction? if the answer to that is yes, and if the truth that we all really are committed to reducing our deficit in the long term is one we're willing to act upon, then i think we would all support the amendment i'm offering this afternoon. with that, i'd like to yield the remainder of my time to the ranking member, mr. van hollen. >> thank you, mr. kildee. again, welcome to the committee and thank you for presenting this important amendment. you know, we've had a number of amendments regarding priorities. we had one from my colleague, mr. ryan, from ohio, to help restore the mandatory part of the pell grant and our republican colleagues said no. they don't want to close some special tax breaks in order to finance that.
go find that money in the discretionary programs. then you look at what the republican budget does to the discretionary program they cut it by $700 billion over the post-sequester level. so if you look at the function $245ucation, they cut over billion from the place they say to go for it. so one thing we heard from the beginning is the top priority of our republican colleagues is let's get our deficits under control wetch said, well, let's do this in a balanced way. we've got to do some cuts but we want to close some tax loopholes and tax expenditures. so i hope our colleagues who say, let's not pass on these deficits and debts to the next generation are willing to close some special tax breaks for the purpose of doing that. what mr. kildee's amendment does is say, for people who earn over $1 million a queer, they still get the benefit of a lot of deductions, but they have to pay
at least 30% in their adjusted gross income. the top rate right now is 39%. what this amendment says is, for goodness' sake, let's make sure they can't take advantage of all the deductions and breaks in the code to lower their tax rate to where it's about the same as a middle income taxpayer. and let's make sure that we reduce the deficit. in the process. and reduce the debt. all our colleagues know that those tax expenditures are simply spending through the tax code. it's going to be interesting to discover whether or not our colleagues are willing to close those tax expenditures for the purposes of reducing the deficit just as they're willing to apparently go after other thing this is a we think are important in the budget like education funding or k through 12 and education funding for pell grants. they're willing to go after that
to reduce the deficit. let's find out if you're willing to go after tax expenditures for millionaires in order to accomplish that goal as well. so mr. kildee, thank you for offering this amendment. i think it puts the question to a vote on something that's really important in this budget deliberation. >> mr. williams is recognized for nine minutes now. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i must tell you jealousy is alive and well in this room tonight. my daddy used to call it the green-eyed monster, from texas. why and when did we start penalizing success and telling people, it's not good to be successful? you know, success comes in a lot of different way a will the of flavors. it comes in the form of family values, it comes in the form of a big heart, strong spirit, and yes, dollars in the bank. you know, millionaire, we've talked about millionaires all night tonight. we've really been after them. what do millionaires do?
they pay taxes. they create jobs. they build things. they buy things. they take risks. they give to charity. they give to the church. they give to little league. they give to the homeless. basically they swing for the fences and hit home runs. you know, i've said before, many times, what the heck is wrong about being a millionaire? you know, what's wrong with profits? we've heard the attack on profits like i'd never thought i'd hear in america before. profits are what everyone strives for. that you have more money today than when you started at the beginning of the day. the federal government, you know, they tried zero% -- they tried 0% interest, it doesn't work. profits are the answer. the federal government has no right, i repeat, has no right to pick winners and losers when it comes to the financial future of taxpayers. so what's wrong, again, about
being successful? successful with your family, successful financially, let's go back to the -- to this country's great history and offer up the american dream for the future generations rather than what i believe we're living today which is the american scheme this amendment speaks, and you've heard my colleague say, it speaks to raising $125 billion to -- through taxes millionaires. what if there are no millionaires? you have no $125 billion. i would submit with tax reduction and true tax reform you'd have more millionaires, more cash flow, and more debt reduction. small business yen rates 60% to 80% of net new jobs and employees -- and employs one-half of all private sector employees. small business is the background of becomebone of this country. why go after these people?
why go after job create -- creators, why go after main street america? higher taxes means higher unemployment. we talked about unemployment rate, extending unemployment benefit, the best way to get people off the unemployment rolls is to put people to work. we talked about that. it's the best thing for american workers. now, i know this. i repeat this, i know this, i am an expert, because i own a business, i still own a business, i still meet payroll, i still fight government regulations every single day and i hate it. i hate it when people laugh and make fun of small business owners. i would ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and simply vote for cash flow in america. vote for unlimited opportunity in america. vote for small business in america. vote for the taxpayers in america. my daddy always said, he said if
you can't improve on the next generation, then just don't bother. i would submit to my colleagues tonight, why don't we bother to try to make america better and get jealousy out of the formula and make the green-eyed monster go away. this is the united states of america, we can make it better by empowering small business, empowering people and empowering the greatest system in the world, competition, free markets, which at the end of the day means a reputation. i yield back to my colleague, dr. price. >> i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding and i want to thank him for his comments. we have heard a lot of discussion this afternoon and on into this evening but these are the kinds of debates that really are kind of sad for the folks at home looking in here. what they do is point out the classic tactic of the left and that is to pit one group of americans against another. to divide people. not unite people but divide
people. kind of sad. frankly it's not what made us the greatest nation in the history of the world. we became so by uniting and doing things together, arm in arm and shoulder to shoulder. as has been said, you can't build up the poor by tearing down the rich. it doesn't work that way. so let's take a peek at what this amendment would actually do. what would the consequence of this amendment be? as the gentleman from texas said, the real target of this is small businesses. most individuals understand and appreciate that the vast joast of small businesses, those that create the most jobs in this country, file their taxes as a subchapter s. that means it's a pass through. they file and file their tax rate as the tax rates are the marginal rate, the rate this is a individuals pay. so you crank up the taxes on those folks that are creating the vast majority of jobs, what do you do?
you destroy jobs. the war on jobs on the left continues to be alive and well. that's not the way to fix this economy. the way to get things rolling is to understand and appreciate what does create jobs. understand and appreciate how we get folks back to work, tearing down small businesses in this country is not the way to do that. high taxes, higher taxes on job creators creates no jobs. pretty doggone simple. if you want real solutions what you would do is work with us on the program of tax reform we've been working on in ways and means that's been alluded to here today on multiple occasions. we're working through this. and that's the way to make it happen. with pro-growth tax policy that makes us competitive from an international standpoint, makes us job crate cree ators, those individuals trying to dream big dreams, trying to create a better mouse trap, make certain they're not punished ruth right
out of the gate, that's how you create jobs. so i appreciate the individual who has joined our committee in offering this amendment but i ould implore him that again, the last way that we're going to solve the challenge, the remarkable challenge we have, is to divide the american people one against another. what we need to do is unite together, come together, arm in arm, and work together to solve the challenges that we've got. i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, dr. price. let me close by saying this, there's simply not enough money at the top end of the income ill scale to solve our budget issues. millionaires have about $1.1 trillion in adjusted growth income -- gross income. even if the government confiscated -- which is what this is -- this wealth at 100% tax, it would only fund the
government for four month this is year. then you'd have all this money taken out of the system that would normally go to create jobs and create -- and hire people. so this is no way to create the jobs we need. this is an important vote. i urge a no vote to my colleagues and i yield back. >> mr. kildee is recognized for a minute to close. >> first of all, let me say one thing. if anyone believe this is a this policy proposal is driven by jealousy, you don't understand the american people. the american dream is not just to be a millionaire. we don't all lie awake at night hoping someday to be a mega millionaire. we lay awake at night hoping to put our kids through school, that we can have a decent roof over our head, enough food on the table and a little bit set aside for the future system of let's not delude ourselves into believing that there's jealousy at the heart of this. what those same people hope is that there'll be a tax policy in this country that says that we
all pay our fair share. that's all we're saying. 97% of small businesses -- small business owners make less than $1 million. so this doesn't go after small business. this goes after people at the very top and it doesn't say we're jealous of you, it doesn't prevent them from hitting a home run, i just don't want them to hit their home run by starting on third base. >> the time of the gentleman has expire the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. a roll call vote is requested. clerk will call the roll. >> dr. price. dr. price, no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no. mr. campbell. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert. mr. calvert, no. mr. cole. mr. cole, no.
mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. lankford. mr. lankford, no. mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. ribble. mr. ribble, no. mr. flores. mr. flores, no. mr. rokita. mr. rokita, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. mrs. blackburn. mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee, no. mr. rigell. mr. rigell, no. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. many walorski. mrs. walorski, no. mr. messer. mr. messer, no. mr. wright. mr. wright, no. mr. williams. mr. williams, no. mr. duffy. mr. duffy, no. mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen, aye.
mr. yarmuth. mr. yarmuth, aye. mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ryan. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore. ms. kaptur. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan, aye. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham aye. mr. cardenas. mr. cardenas, aye. mr. blumenauer. mr. schrader. mr. schrader, aye. mr. doggett. mr. doggett, aye. mr. kildee. mr. kildee, aye. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no.
mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. >> any members wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the clerk shall report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 13, the noes are 22. >> ayes 13, noes 22, the amendment is not agreed to. i'd like to -- i'd like to take a moment out of regular order to recognize mr. flores for a moment of silence and for an announcement. >> mr. chairman, thank you for this privilege. fort hood is in texas, as you know, the world's largest army base. it's represented by mr. williams and also by mr. carter. there's been a shooting incident today, apparently we have three fatalities and so i'd ask the committee for a moment of silence to remember not only the victims as well as those that were injured and our first responders trying to keep everybody safe.
>> the committee will come back to order. pursuant to an agreement i worked out with mr. van hollen and the relevant member, we are now going to tier b, the following amendments will not be offered, amendment number 26, amendment 20, and the three place holders amendments, 28, 29, and 30. we are now moving, i'm asking unanimous consent, we have a u.c. agreement, moving to all amendments will be six minutes, three minutes each side, two for the proponent, three for the opponent, one for rebuttal, except for amendment number 25, protect the american middle class from tax increases, that will be an eight minute amendment, four minutes equally divided.
i ask that that be made in order, without objection. ok so now we are moving to tier b. there will be two minutes, then three, then one. ok. ok. who is up first here? mr. pocan, are you ready? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will designate the amendment and staff will distribute copies, amendment number 21, beginning of tier b. >> an amendment offered by mr. pocan relating to student loans. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this may there will be 6,000 students graduating from the flagship university in my state, my alma mater u.w. madison, and they'll have close to $30,000 debt on average. we know student debt has surpassed $1 trillion, only
behind home mortgages, surpassing credit cards, autos, etc. it's one of the largest areas that not only holds people back as they're tiing to move on after they've granl waited, but also holds back the economy. if you're making a student loan payment, you may not be buying a new car, you may have a used car you may not be buying a home you may still be renting. it's been a growing problem, it's estimated that in 20 years the average public university will be more than $41,000 and private universities more than $130,000. it keeps to a point that it's going to be very difficult for everyone to have access to higher education. what this amendment does, our -- does is three things. it fixes two of the problems that are in the budget proposed today that cuts funding to stafford loans to keep the interest rates at zero while students are still in school and it also fixes the -- ends the income-based repayment program. those two things were cut out of the budget that's proposed and has a new provision that would
allow students after they've graduated to be able to refinance their student loans. one of the odd things we have out there is you're not able to easily, automatically, like you would your car or home or personal loan, refinance at a lower rate. most cases you're stuck with what you have. this would allow 40 million americans to be able to refinance their loans. when you look at every single second, american -- total student loan debt increases by $2,854. the federal reserve said that that has tripled in the last eight year, representing a 70% increase both the number of people and the average debt. i would recommend we support his amendment, mr. chairman. mr. messer -- >> mr. messer is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment offers yet another tax increase, this one now $6 billion, to fund student loan refinancing. i think we can all agree that
student loan debt is a growing problem in america, but let's be clear. the number one threat to young people in america today is the president's terrible economy. this amendment note this is a 7.7% of yuck college graduates in 2012 were unemployed, making it hard to repay their debt. this high rate of unemployment is a result of this administration's failed economic policy. consider the economic track record as of late. the real g.d. perform growth over the last four years has averaged just over 2%. well below the 3% historical trend rate of growth in the u.s. c.b.o. finds that the u.s. rate has been growing at less than half the typical rate exhibited in other economic recoveries since world war ii. the labor force participation rate has fallen to an astounding
63%, close to the lowest level over the last 35 years. roughly 10.5 million americans are currently unemployed and those works have seen meager real wage growth. shrinking paychecks. real median household income declined for the fifth consecutive year in 2012 and it's just over $51,000 is at its lowest level since 1995. that's why this budget promotes pro-growth policies, policies that the un- and under-employed recent college graduates need. let's get to the meet of the -- meat of the amendment this federal government provides a variety of loan repayment plans to help students manage their debt this budget adopts modest reforms proposed by the president's fiscal commission that would require undergraduate students to assume more responsibility for the costs of their loans. it also rolls back expansions to the income based repayment
program that many suggest are disproportionately benefiting graduate and professional students. this budget's reforms for student financial aid will ensure critical programs are available to the people who need them most rather than fueling tuition inflation and boosting administrators' bottom line. i urge a no vote. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman has a minute to close. >> thank you, mr. chairman. if the president indeed was previously a c.e.o. of one of the big banks, i will associate myself with the gentleman's remarks, however i don't believe he was. so to blame the economy on him when we've actually reduced the deficit by about 60% since he's been in office is pretty tremendous. i think perhaps those remarks are misguided. however, you are choosing to vote no, you'll be choosing to fund big oil companies and company this is a send jobs
overseas over your students because that's what's in the amendment. you can talk about other sorts of things but this would restore the two programs that were cut got g.o.p. version of the budget and allow a new provision for people to refinance their loans or you can continue to support big oil and company this is a send jobs overseas and other proposals like that. that's what's here. i would hope we would have a different approach, especially as we're trying to have a growing economy, investing in education is one of our best ways. i urge a yes vote. thank you. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. does the gentleman ask for a vorded vote? the clerk will call the role. >> dr. price. dr. price, no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no. mr. campbell. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert. mr. calvert, no. r. cole.
mr. cole? mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock no. mr. lankford. mr. lankford, no. mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. ribble. mr. ribble, no. mr. flores. mr. flores, no. mr. rokita. mr. rokita, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall, no. ms. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no. mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee, no. mr. rigell. mr. rigell, no. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. mrs. walorski. mrs. walorski, no. mr. messer. mr.s mer, no. mr. wright. mr. wright, no. mr. williams.
mr. williams. mr. williams, no. mr. duffy. mr. duffy, no. mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmuth. mr. yarmuth, aye. mr. pass credit. -- mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ripe. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore. ms. kaptur. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan, aye. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. huffman. mr. huffman, aye. mr. cardenas. mr. cardenas, aye. mr. plum naur. -- mr. blumenauer. mr. schrader. mr. schrader, aye. mr. doggett. mr. doggett, aye.
mr. kildee. mr. kildee, aye. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no. >> are there any members who wish to vote or change their society? hearing none, the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the aye are 13, the noes are 22. >> ayes 13, noes, 22, the mendment is not agreed to. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will report the amendment, the staff will distribute copies. >> amendment offered by mr. van hollen relating to the president's health care law. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman this amendment is titled the truth in budgeting amendment. you might also call it, you can't have it both ways amendment, or do what you say you're doing amendment. this goes to the issue that in this republican budget, you cannot claim that it's been balanced at the end of the 10
years and at the same time claim you are getting rid of the entire affordable care act. you do get rid of all the affordable benefits in the affordable care act but you keep all the revenues in the affordable care act. don't take my word for it. the heritage foundation has already criticized this budget last year same provisions this year, saying you've got all the revenues from obamacare. we know you've got all the savings from medicare, they're $2 trillion. $2 trillion in this budget from the affordable care act. this is a simple amendment. it says once you pass this budget, asuming you get the votes to pass this budget on the floor, which will have embedded in it $2 trillion from the affordable care act, revenue and medicare savings, that you can't after that, you shall not be in order after that, to bring another bill to the floor to repeal the affordable care act because when you bring that bill to the floor and you repeal the affordable care act you will immediately be making your budget totally out of balance.
and you just cannot have it both ways. you can not fool the american people on this one. i'm sorry. this is a very clear issue. and i think the american people deserve the respect of you either telling them that you kept the provisions on the revenues and the savings in the affordable care act or tell them your budget is not balanced. but don't pretend that both are true at the same time. and this is just the rule that ould enforce that truth. >> i yield myself three minutes. thank you for this amendment. i am so pleased we have finally seen this amendment because it finally answers the question that republicans have been asking since the president's health care law was passed. do the $700 billion in medicare cuts help pay for the new
entitlements or do they extend the solvency of the program? which one is it. they like to say it reduces the deficit and extend the life of the medicare plan. c.b.o. testified that this -- that you can't count the dollar twice. the former chief actuary sat in that chair and said you cannot double count the savings twice. the only people who have claimed that it's possible to count $1 twice are my friends across the aisle this amendment clears everything up. it makes it clear that the president and my colleagues raided medicare by more than $700 billion to pay for obamacare. you just made it clear. so thank you for that clarification. now what is it we propose to do?
we propose to get rid of obamacare and we also say not only don't take money from medicare to pay for obamacare, those savings from medicare stay in medicare so it really actually does extend the solvency of medicare. more to the point, we think that you're a little overzealous perhaps in some areas. the chief actuary is telling us about a hospital insurance fund going bankrupt probably sooner than 2026. we have hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies that will go into the red in the next five years according to actuaries. medicare advantage benefits cut over the last two years. that's why we have the reserve fund. reserve funds matter. a reserve fund is how we got the doc fix to the floor. reserve fund is how we got the highway bill paid for. we have proven that these devices, called reserve funds are actual legislative vehicles to address real problems. we had a long talk about the highway trust fund. the point is, we are going to
fix these medicare problems as they arise and any savings that came from medicare, stay with medicare to extend the life of medicare and the very existence of this amendment proves our criticism all along. you're double counting. either obamacare lowers the ficit, or it extends the solvency of medicare, not both. you've been claiming both all along. i yield. >> based on your response i have to believe you're going to vote for this amendment because that was the most artful dodge i have seen in congress for a long time and there are a lot of artful dodgers around here. you did not answer or address this question. the reason you didn't is because it is a fact that if you look at your budget, without the medicare savings, it is not in balance. without the revenue from the affordable care act, it's not in balance. if that's not true, then you
should accept this amendment. because you'll be able to bring up all your repeal bills and say, well, it doesn't -- it's not in conflict with our effort to reduce the deficit. if with what you're saying is -- you actually didn't take on this issue directly but nothing you said should prevent any of your members for voting for this. if it's not going to be a contradiction in your budget. >> it's all well and good but i have to recommend a no vote. >> i'm glad to hear. >> the question season the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. clearly in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. recorded vote is requested. clerk will call the roll. >> dr. price. dr. price, no. mr. garrett. mr. garrett, no. mr. camp el be -- mr. campbell. mr. campbell, no. mr. calvert. mr. calvert, no.
mr. cole. mr. cole, no. mr. mcclintock. mr. mcclintock, no. mr. lankford. mr. lankford, no. mrs. black. mrs. black, no. mr. ribble. mr. ribble, no. mr. flores. mr. flores, no. mr. rokita. mr. rokita, no. mr. woodall. mrs. blackburn. mrs. blackburn, no. mr. nunnelee. mr. nunnelee, no. mr. rigell. mr. rigell, no. mrs. hartzler. mrs. hartzler, no. mrs. walorski. mrs. walorski, no. mr. messer. mr. messer, no. mr. wright. mr. wright, no. mr. williams. mr. williams, no. mr. duffy. mr. duffy, no. mr. woodall. mr. woodall. no.
mr. van hollen. mr. van hollen, aye. mr. yarmuth. mr. yarmuth, aye. mr. pascrell. mr. pascrell, aye. mr. ryan. mr. ryan, aye. ms. moore. ms. kaptur. mr. mcdermott. ms. lee. ms. lee, aye. mr. jeffries. mr. jeffries, aye. mr. pocan. mr. pocan, aye. ms. lujan grisham. ms. lujan grisham, aye. mr. huffman. mr. huffman, aye. mr. cardenas. mr. cardenas, aye. mr. blumenauer. mr. blumenauer, aye. mr. schrader. mr. schrader, aye. mr. doggett. mr. doggett, aye. mr. kildee. mr. kildee, aye. mr. chairman. mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no.
>> anybody wish to change their vote? anybody wish to vote? hearing none, the clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the ayes are 14, the noes are 22. >> ayes 14, noes 22, the amendment is not agreed to. next, amendment number 25, mr. pascrell, this is the eight-minute one per our unanimous consent agreement. mr. pascrell is recognized to bring it up. >> thank you for your indulgence, mr. chairman. >> clerk will designate the amendment, staff will distribute comments. >> an amendment by mr. pascrell relating to taxes on the middle class. >> the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. >> mr. chairman, as a point of information, this came out today, the citizens for tax justice, another ryan budget gives millionaires average tax cut of at least $200,000. i am not jealous of that fact but i want to put it in the into the record. like the chairman and several
other members of the budget committee, i also have the privilege of serving on the ways and means committee. over the past several years, we have been engaged in the process of writing a fundamental tax reform bill. the effort culminated a few weeks ago with the release of chairman camp's tax reform legislation. he did what few people thought were possible. he wrote a tax reform bill that eliminated many sacred cow tax expenditures and loopholes, lowered the individual and corporate rates and according to the joint committee on taxation, did it in a way that was revenue neutral in the first 10 years, mean nothing one -- no one income group's taxes went up. however, mr. camp did not succeed in his big goal. the top individual rate in his plan is 35%, not the 25% he ought. and that budget resolution and that previous budget resolutions have called for.
why? for me, this is not a surprise. outside analysts like to -- like the tax policy center have shown over and over and over again that reducing the top margin rate to 25% is impossible to do in a revenue you would increase taxes on the middle class. the data is there. i did not make it out. this is what they have presented. there are not enough tax loopholes out there to close the gap. it is concerning to me that the budget resolution continues to cooperate and that there is fundamental tax reform legislation in line with what was proposed. retinal -- revenue neutral. distributional neutrality. the yield to the ranking member.
down 25%.gone for three years, we have set show us. you cannot drop the top tax rate without increasing the tax urban on middle income taxpayers. he shows that you can't. that is why there is a top rate of 35 are sent. -- 35%. one of the criteria for this budget is to make sure you are not increasing the tax burden on middle income taxpayers. you want to go down to 25%. the response was, you want to be fair. as is to make sure you do not increase the tax burden on middle-class taxpayers in the process of dropping the rate a full third. thank you. >> mr. duffy is recognized. >> or we go. we have been clear. we have wanted to lower taxes on
all working americans. we have been the ones who said listen, we need to cut out the loopholes, the preferences, the deductions. most of those are taken advantage of by wealthy americans. we want a tax code that is fair. it has been the other side of the aisle leading that charge both note that innt to this obama economy, median household incomes have dropped consecutively. it is now over $51,000 per year. this is the lowest since 1995. we want tax reform that is program. it will put our families back to work. we want to stop the obama slide in wages and they can reverse that. they could start making more money.
they will have a little extra change in their pocket. there will not be as many financial pressures. i think it is important to note that if we do not change course with our entitlement system, this is unsustainable. whether you ask democratic or republican economist, there is not enough money with wealthy americans. you cannot tax them enough to pay for all the promises that are made. course, you change will tax wealthy americans, middle-class americans, and poor americans. everyone will get tax. we are talking about reform to these systems. we will make sure that they are sustainable and make sure that we are not raising taxes. we do not want to have a negative impact on american productivity. if you want to make sure middle-class americans not get a tax increase, work with us to reform the entitlement system so that we will not have to raise those taxes.
if we don't, tax increases are coming for everybody. i yield to my friend from wisconsin. i think you've real thing. i remember very clearly two-and-a-half years ago that the president of the united states and many of our friends were spiking the football when the u.s. a cream court ruled that the affordable care act was constitutional because it was a tax. here, our colleagues across the aisle are willing to shut down the government over repealing the individual mandate that they are now calling for. the only middle-class people who have been tax are those subject to the individual mandate in obamacare. i could almost buy into this amendment if it was not for all of the other nonsense. i am surprised to see that we have finally come around. that is the only tax that the
middle class has suffered. it has been the individual mandate. 31 million americans will be subject to a tax increase this year. we want to stop and prevent that. i yield back. >> another brilliant point made by the gentleman from wisconsin. i concur. you are not the only side of his raise taxes. i do think that we have to work to performke we are a mix of sustainable activities so we can preserve a pro growth tax code. we want to make sure that middle-class families do not have the burden of tax increases. we will have to work together. it is better to start now than to wait until the crisis comes toward us. >> the gentleman has a minute to close. >> can i go?
friends, you made an argument with his explicit protection. this budget resolution is 2000tively calling for dollar tax increases for the middle class. we have learned that the ways and means and the math is not add up. that is why we are offering this amendment. to ensure that any tax reform pursuant to this resolution retracts any tax increases for the middle class. i hope you will join with me in that. it also explicitly acknowledges the math. math is simple. if the type of tax reform called with athis resolution -- with a 25% rating --
juvenile justice programs. >> he is recognized for two minutes. >> this amendment has to do with juvenile justice programs. the join me in supporting this amendment that protects federal investment in juvenile justice. a proven wayng is to prevent crime and local communities and reduce youth incarceration. it will foster better outcomes for youth. federal investment is responsible because prevention programs keep at-risk youth out of the criminal justice system. they save taxpayer dollars. the average incarceration of a youth in the united states cost $80,000 per year. prevention and intervention efforts throughout communities in america cost as little as $2500 per program. in addition to that, can berated youth
reincarcerated seven out of 10 times once they have been reincarcerated the first time. there is a seven out of 10 chance that the system will never see that person again. we are trying to help states and neighborhoods that we will implement evidence-based strategies. we want to foster better outcomes for youth. in the united states of america, we are dealing with human beings. the best thing to do is to be preventative. we must improve crime statistics. we can reduce the number of victims. we should be prevention oriented. we should not just incarcerated person. that is the way to go. will save taxpayers money at every level of government. in addition to that, it will reduce crime more than any other method.
>> you are recognized for three minutes. >> thank you. just to clarify, the budget resolution deals with the real problem. there is significant overlap and ways in the justice department grant. dojreport is that the should do more to reduce unnecessary duplication. it talks about many of these grants that were awarded between 2005 and 2011. they were awarded without .onsideration of the program to quote the report, we found that they awarded multiple grants for similar purposes. calls for resolution
streamlining the grant program to eliminate unnecessary duplication. will continueees to receive funds and will benefit from a system of justice department grants. more money for a system that party fails to dent. it should not serve as a piggy bank for spending policies. furthermore, we should be reading -- raising taxes on job creators. this resolution calls for comprehensive tax reform. that is how we should be considering any changes to the tax code. i yield back my time. >> nobody else? >> one minute to close. >> i agree with much of what my colleagues have said. not bese we should wasting taxpayer dollars.
but in my statement, i said that it is all about evidence these programs. when i was on the city council los angeles, and made it my job to make sure that we harnessed all the programs for juvenile justice. we ended many of the programs. crime went down drastically. andpolice chief, did complemented all the work we were doing. it was much more defective. we were efficiently monitor evidence-based programming. when i was in the state legislature, i made sure that we theyrograms and that reported every single year on their outcome. they were allowed to make mistakes, but they were wired to request -- corrects -- required to correct those mistakes. i agree that we should have programs that are effective and that is exactly what i am advocating here. we have way too many children in the system.
but funding it properly, crime will go down drastically. thank you very much. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the question is on the amendment. the "no"s have that one. a roll call is requested. >> mr. garrett? >> no. >> mr. campbell >> no. >> mr. cool? >> no. >> mr. langford? that's no. florez? >> no. >> mr. woodall? >> no. >> mr. nunnally?
california is recognized. fax deficit reduction. we have talked about that a lot. we have also talked about the need for a balanced budget. if we're serious about that, here is an opportunity to prove it. this budget would balance the nation/y cutting our first line of defense against hunger. at the same time, this budget continues abusive defense spending. it asks for 300 and $1 billion more -- $301 billion more. we cannot write a blank check for spending on or. my amendment would eliminate funding for the contingency operation. through 2021. it would dedicate itself to deficit reduction.
it has exposed beyond any reasonable means what a contingency -- contingency fund should be. we pay wartime operations database mall emergency fund. it results in less oversight. this is a slush fund. let me yields a minute to my colleague from california. >> i think the gentlelady. problems,ribing the my friends across the aisle have offered some russian history that would make vladimir putin blush. started two wars without raising the funding to pay for them. he cut taxes. we have never read the revenues to pay for these awards. we continue to not deal with it. the gop budget funds wars that we don't even know about. wars should not be the
baseline for this country. at the minimum, we should know what we are fighting or. >> ms. hartzler is recognized. >> this budget revise exactly the resources that the president has requested. it would be premature to cut those funding. this saturday, there will be a presidential election in afghanistan. we do not know if we will have a partner there or not. we are hopeful that they will find the security force agreement. that would allow us to keep some true global there. we do not know we will have zero 10,000, 20,000, or 30,000 after 2014. we do not know the length of time that they will be there. i want to clarify what the overseas contingency fund has
caps on. date -- retro retrograde. we are moving supplies out of it and bringing them back home. recent test of its call for 50,000 vehicles and more than 90,000 shipping containers from afghanistan. there is a reset. we will have to rebuild war-torn equipment. damages to the equipment from the losses there. we need to continue to support ongoing operations around the world, including operation enduring freedom. the goal is to disrupt and dismantle al qaeda. that includes operations we have going on in afghanistan -- i mean, africa. we must the call those goals. it would behoove but to keep these funds. i urge you to vote no for the
security of our nation. and women in you are fighting on our behalf. i would like to yield a minute to my colleague from oklahoma. class i think the gentlelady for yielding. i am in the unusual position about arguing against my friends on the democratic side. we're actually doing exactly with the president has requested us to do. my friend ms. hartzler pointed out, and my friends on the other side, this is coming to an end. we are in an uncertain time. this will depend a lot on the outcome of the election. come backstration may and ask us to do things. if the ultimate decision is to withdraw troops, which i suspect it will not be. need funding for
2-3 years afterwards to bring the equipment back and reset the force. that is how the process works. i think this is well-intentioned, but wrinkly it is premature. i urge my friends to vote no. theuld urge us to some or president of the united states. >> your time is expired. the gentlelady is recognized to close. >> it is nice to hear some bipartisan support. amendment does not touch 2015. this amendment is for 2016. secondly, we are in a state of perpetual war. military operations are finally winding down. it is time to end the use of this. if we fight another war, let's
come back and talk about that war. ignore theontinue to pregnant reports of abuse going on in afghanistan. we continue to spend more money on a situation that has no solution. in 2016, this it creates new wars. my colleague from california does not even know where they will be on. let's talk about how much total cost. shouldmeantime, we regard this amendment. are people in favor? the "no's" habit. >> dr. price? no.
>> aye. >> ms. blackburn? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. mcdermott? >> aye. >> any other members wishing to vote? >> mr. chairman, on that vote, the nose or 22. "no's" are 22. >> i haven't amendment on the desk. >> an amendment offered by mr. van hollen. >> thank you. --hink we have you read reached an agreement. this deals with the overseas contingency. each year, the president and the military commanders asked
congress for a certain amount in the overseas contingency account to deal with the war in afghanistan and other overseas contingencies. dot a budget before us will is provide that amount for fiscal year 2015. what this amendment says is that that account should not be used as a slush fund for base defense funding. funding that is not related to overseas issues. we have seen some creeping of funds starting to be moved into the overseas contingency account. those are for regular defense operations. in an effort to circumvent the caps -- we would all want to make sure that that is not happen. we have a bipartisan amendment. with mr. along waterton.
-- hasdall is in the been part of that. that is what this amendment is designed to do. mr. chairman, you had another idea. >> we agree with the sentiment of this. knowople know, we do not what the cost will be. this number will obviously change. it should change to whatever it is. we want to make sure that we will put it our court. language that reflects the -- cannt so that we can ease into it a discretionary caps. that is the kind of language that we're putting in our report. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> with that, we will withdraw.
number 18. >> how much time do i have? >> two-minute and three to oppose and one to close stop >> i only have two minutes? i have some figures. >> let's call it out. >> way, i have to figure it out. >> clerk, when you designate. back an amendment offered by ms. moore. >> let's hold the clock for a second. >> i have four figures. i have three minutes? >> you have three minutes. >> one of those will have to do to close for you. so i will have to drop
you off. [laughter] guilty -- guilty -- mr. kildee. >> you got one minute. >> in the terms of your amendment, we should know that there are 5 million people in poverty without it. more than one million more children would live in robbery. that poverty. the republican budget assumes that recipients would be employed or in job training. the republican budget does not provide additional trip -- training. of snap recipients cannot be expected to work. they are low-income children, seniors, or people severe disabilities.
it will work among the remaining snap recipients will not leave our gotten work requirements. they can only get benefits for three months out of every three years. they are not working on job training. this amendment is badly needed. we should be targeting subsidies for oil and corporate jets. --s republican budget cut $125 billion. it is hard to believe. people deserve to he. snap is a bridge over troubled water. no one wants to be on snap. i have been a food stamp recipient. it has helped in some very difficult times. believe me, i did not want to rely on that. i would never be here if it had not been for that lifeline that
the taxpayer provided. >> i support the amendment and i hope it passes. i hope you really understand that snap recipients want to work. they do not want to be on snap. >> you have three minutes. >> thank you. >> i appreciate the intent of ms. moore's amendment and the opportunity to speak for a few minutes. i will respond to it. i always try to identify the guiding principles and facts. the guiding principle is that snap is an essential safety net. i think we have a strong commitment to making sure that it is preserved. the relevant facts are these. in 2001, we were spending $19 billion on the or graham. today we are spending $80 billion.
we have gone from 18 to $80 billion. our budget calls for $600 billion. the usda in their own report talked about how we have diverged from historical relationships between unemployment and snap, and now they're going into different directions. in 2003, snap caseloads increased by 22%. unemployment was dropping. not every expansion of a program is wise. not every expansion of a program rings those who are receiving the benefit -- it does not move into self-sufficient. that is where we are headed. i would like to yield the remainder of my time to my colleague. >> thank you. i want to clarify what this bill does do. it gives the states more control over the program.
it also provides for job training programs. this actually is going back to a program that was signed by president bill clinton. it was passed by congress back in 1996. a bipartisan congress. democrats supported the idea. they thought that able-bodied adults had to be working 20 hours a week in order to get benefits. they had to be looking for work or going to job training. or even volunteering 20 hours a week. when i talk to people about this, they say, that is common sense. that is reasonable. by them doing that, child poverty rates fell. welfare caseloads fell. workers' wages increase. this is a good plan and it has been some ordered in the past. it works. the best way to get people off of food stamps is to give them a good job.
my colleagues across the aisle will support this budget. it provides tax reform. it provides a place in the hollow -- presidents health care law. it consolidates federal job training programs. it embraces american energy. those things create jobs and people need -- do not need to be on food stamps. i urge you to oppose this amendment and promote the job training programs. >> you have a minute to close. the gentlelady is recognized. in a moment we will cut $137 billion of food and of the mouth of the, the elderly, and the disabled. the primary beneficiaries of -- this propaganda and his campaign of misinformation that
characterize multiple populations. there are people who need to achieve self-sufficiency. it characterizes them as lazy persons. i can tell you that the snap program has been run very efficiently. there is a low error rate. benefitsipients of where temperatures have plunged to -45 degrees are portray esperance for receiving benefits. their heating bill rises. this is a campaign of disinformation that i have seen. congratulations. i yield back. >> all right. the gentlelady time has expired. we will discuss the amendment offered from the lady from walking. -- milwaukee. >> a roll call vote is requested. >> dr. price? >> no.
>> mr. derek? >> no. >> mr. campbell? >> no. >> mr. cole? >> no. >> mr. mcclintock? fax no. >> mr. langford? >> no. >> the original? -- mr. riddle? >> no. but mr. kita? >> no. >> ms. blackburn. >> no. >> internationally? that's no. >> mr. rizzo? >> no. >> ms. fuller skate? --mr. wright? >> no. >> mr. williams? >> no. >> mr. duffy? >> no.
>> mr. van hollen? >> aye. >> mr. llamas? >> aye. >> mr. ryan? >> aye. >> ms. moore? >> aye. >> mr. mcdermott? >> aye. >> ms. lee? >> aye. >> mr. jeffries? >> aye. >> mr. lankershim? >> aye. >> mr. hoffman? >> aye. >> mr. blumenauer? >> aye. >> mr. schrader? >> aye. >> mr. doggett? aye. kildee? >> aye.
>> mr. chairman? >> no. mr. chairman, on that vote the nose were 22 -- the no votes were 22. we are on tour last amendment. dr. mcdermott? >> is distribute copies of the amendment. >> an amendment offered by mr. mcdermott related to medicare. >> it is last, but it is not least. it is one you should consider. is your last chance to stand with the seniors. the republicans have this maniacal mission to repeal the affordable care act. here are the facts of what you are doing. the affordable care act covers
prescription drug cap. since the law was enacted, 7.9 million people have already saved $9.9 billion. of $2500es a savings per beneficiary. save morehey will money. repeal of the affordable care act will put those costs back on seniors and shoves them into the doughnut hole. nice a real knife -- present to vote for this. seniors will be please. and as donated 37 .2 million of onetook advantage preventative service. there was no cost sharing. tookthan 4 million advantage of an annual wellness visit.
seniors had to pay a deductible or a copayment on many important preventative services. these services help patients catch problems early. better for their health and it saves money for them and the people in the program. repeal of the aca will increase these costs to seniors. it is your chance to say that you stance with the seniors. you do not want to take this benefit away from them. if you vote against it, you are saying that you will take away drug benefits. >> two minutes. i will recognize dr. price for three minutes. upi asked the staff to tally the various amendments that were proposed. if you have a all caps increases that were proposed and not accepted to this resolution, it
is $1 trillion. trillion of tax increases. those were offered here today. oft is a pretty good job highlighting the differences that exist between us. i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. we have work to save the american people from tax increases. regarding the amendment, you are right. we will stand with the years. we will save and strengthen medicare. i don't know what seniors you are talking to. -- as a physician, i talk to seniors all the time. drug prices are increasing. drug prices are increasing. seniors are paying a whole lot more.
the congressional budget office verified that in a letter they sent to our chairman. the increase in prices would faced by some beneficiaries higher than they would be in the absence of this provision. there is also an annual fee on manufacturers of brand-name drugs. they expected defeat will increase. newly acquired drugs will increase. those stem from the new requirements. the premiums for drug plan will increase. that is what the seniors pay, along with an increase. colleagues in reforming and strengthening and securing medicare the way that you do to support the republican budget. i urge a no vote on this amendment.
>> the gentleman yield back. a minute to close. >> the choice is very simple. repeal the aca and kill all of ?ts provisions when you put this drug benefit thatthe republicans insist that the secretary of health and human services could not negotiate any kind of savings. that is still in there. now you tell me that prices are rising. of course they are arriving. you gave all the control to the pharmaceutical companies. you refused to let government act on behalf of what is good for years. i yield to the ranking member. >> i was going to restrain from this, but since you made that comment. we said at the beginning of this debate your budget may a choice. you choose to protect the very wealthy and special interest to have a lot of rules in their
favor at the expense of everybody else. we chose to act very wealthy people to share more responsibility so that everybody -- [inaudible] [applause] >> the time has expired. the gentleman from washington. >> clearly the no votes have it. >> a roll call is requested. >> dr. price? >> no. >> mr. derek? >> no. >> mr. holt? >> no. >> mr. mcclintock? >> no. five ms. black? i know.
>> mr. jeffries? why aye. >> mr. spoken? but aye. >> mr. hoffman? >> aye. >> mr. cardin and? aye. >> mr. schrader? aye. >> mr. doggett? >> aye. >> mr. kildee? >> aye. >> mr. chairman? fax no. a quick report. on that vote, be no votes were at 22. at the amendment is not agree to stop that is it. that is the last amendment. i recognize the gentleman from georgia. i move the committee adopted budget aggregate and other matters.
the question is on the adoption of the budget aggregate. all those in favor? >> those opposed? -- the aye votes have it. >> i called the text of a concurrent resolution. i recognize the gentleman from georgia for a motion. glancing at the committee order the conference resolution of the budget report to the house. there should be a recognition that recommendation that the budget passed. >> all those in favor? >> all those opposed? >> in the opinion of the chair, the i votes happened. >> rollcall? >> a roll call vote is requested. >> dr. price? >> aye.
>> no. >> mr. hoffman? >> no. >> mr. blumenauer? >> no. >> mr. schrader? >> no. >> mr. doggett? >> no. >> mr. kildee? >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> five. >> are there any members wishing to vote? >> on that vote, the no votes are seen -- 16. >> the motion is agreed to. there is a concurrent resolution on the budget. it will go to the house of representatives. a form is present. >> i asked for the requisite number of days.
>> i recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> i move that the committee authorized the chairman to authorize a committee in the house. >> i recognize the gentleman from georgia. should be authorized to make technical corrections and correct the remaining elements. reserving the right to object, i want to take one moment and recognize the fact that this is her 14th year on the budget committee. this is likely to be your last budget. it is your last budget. >> it is. >> i want to say on behalf of our colleagues on this side of the aisle that what we do not like your budget, we do appreciate the fact that you conducted this committee and the proceedings and a professional manner.
glad after a daylong session of debating, the house budget committee has agreed to leave the budget proposal to be all house. cuts $5.1 trillion. 2 trillion comes from repairing the health care law. you can see more of the budget committee in just a moment here and sees that. or on c-span.org. there are reports of a shooting at the army base in fort hood, texas. the associated press writes that according to a senior defense official, one person has been killed and 14 were injured. the ap says that according to the justice department, before the gunman is dead of a self-it was. -- self-inflicted wound.
he was a 34-year-old soldier. president obama is in chicago for a political fundraiser. he issued a statement about the shooting saying that we are following it closely. i wanted to show that we will get to the bottom of this. we are hopeful that something like this will not happen again. the president referred to another shooting at before but army post in 2009 stop we will also hear from the army chief of staff and an army secretary. they will testify before the senate. talk aboutpected to what happened at work and defense issues. that is live starting at 930 eastern. we will watch more of the house budget committee markup. this portion is about one hour.
>> i want to thank the members of this committee. it is the second year in the session. it should not be a strange process to anybody. this is our fourth budget. each one of our budgets has been on time. we have not always agreed on every detail. we have worked through the tough details. some people might be wondering why you are doing the budget.
here is how i see it. iny had not found a solution four years. senator marie and i tried to change that. agreement to-year fulfill our responsibilities. we spared our military from arbitrary cut. we return the power of the purse back to congress. the agreement was a step in the right direction. it did not go far enough. it did not go far enough to address all aspects of our debt. it did not do enough to get our company growing again. recession,after the many people have recovered. economic growth has failed to meet expectations. the congressional budget office has consistently lowered its economic or cap.
the budget and the economy are linked. can driveweak economy the budget through the red, a responsible budget can >> if washington is serious about getting families back to work it needs to get serious about our national debt. serious about our national defense. the world has gotten more dangerous. yet, the president wants to cut defense spending. under his budget, the army would shrink to pre-world war i levels. the navy to pre-world war i levels. air force to its smallest size ever. half of the cruise would be in drydock. we would retire the 810 the u2.